I think if she'd just been a WAG/3rd cousin kind of guest it might have made a brief blip on the fashion radar, but from the Prime minister's wife it does make one wonder why she did things the difficult way and made herself stand out a little. To North American's the hats may be silly, but they are pretty standard for British weddings, and she does look a little underdressed for the crowd. It doesn't make the other bad outfits any better because hers was lacking, or hers any better because their's were "worse"- they can both be lacking it style.

I totally respect the hat tradition (I've always liked the Queen's hats, and the Queen Mum had quite a flair for fashion) but I guess I don't see why it's a big deal not to participate, especially when Debretts said hats aren't required.

Maybe it's traditional to wear a hat to a formal event like this, and bucking the tradition maybe sent the wrong message?

But surely, surely not wearing a hat is better than the thing that was percariously balanced on Princess Beatrice's head. That thing was brutal (too bad, because the rest of her outfit was elegant and she is quite pretty).

But it wasn't a choice between no hat and a thing like that. What would have been "better" was to get some kind of simple, attractive hat or headgear -- even a hairband with some decoration. Not wearing a hat says, "look at me! I'm special" just as much as wearing something bonkers does.

I think if she'd just been a WAG/3rd cousin kind of guest it might have made a brief blip on the fashion radar, but from the Prime minister's wife it does make one wonder why she did things the difficult way and made herself stand out a little. To North American's the hats may be silly, but they are pretty standard for British weddings, and she does look a little underdressed for the crowd. It doesn't make the other bad outfits any better because hers was lacking, or hers any better because their's were "worse"- they can both be lacking it style.

I totally respect the hat tradition (I've always liked the Queen's hats, and the Queen Mum had quite a flair for fashion) but I guess I don't see why it's a big deal not to participate, especially when Debretts said hats aren't required.

Maybe it's traditional to wear a hat to a formal event like this, and bucking the tradition maybe sent the wrong message?

But surely, surely not wearing a hat is better than the thing that was percariously balanced on Princess Beatrice's head. That thing was brutal (too bad, because the rest of her outfit was elegant and she is quite pretty).

But it wasn't a choice between no hat and a thing like that. What would have been "better" was to get some kind of simple, attractive hat or headgear -- even a hairband with some decoration. Not wearing a hat says, "look at me! I'm special" just as much as wearing something bonkers does.

SHe did wear a decorative hair barrette, though. How is that somehow beneath a hairband or even a fascinator in formality? They wouldn't cover her head either so it can't be that.

SHe did wear a decorative hair barrette, though. How is that somehow beneath a hairband or even a fascinator in formality? They wouldn't cover her head either so it can't be that.

My understanding is that while it wasn't on the invitation, there was further guidance given as to what was meant by the dress code and ladies were supposed to wear a hat or 'substantial' fascinator.

A hairband or barrette is not the equivalent to a hat or fascinator (I have no idea why - it's an arbitrary rule, but it is a rule. It might be because a hat or fascinator stands out from the head?).

Other PPs have mentioned Chelsea and the Yorks. The thing is, while their clothes may have been ugly and not suited them, they were suitable for the event. I think Samantha Cameron actually looked much better than they did. The problem is that they were dressed appropriately and she wasn't.

I totally respect the hat tradition (I've always liked the Queen's hats, and the Queen Mum had quite a flair for fashion) but I guess I don't see why it's a big deal not to participate, especially when Debretts said hats aren't required.

Maybe it's traditional to wear a hat to a formal event like this, and bucking the tradition maybe sent the wrong message?

It's kind of like going to a formal BWW in jeans. Yes, you're decent and even appropriate for some circumstances, but you're totally inappropriate for that particular venue. And it conveys a very definite message about you, that you either have no idea how to dress appropriately or you're trying to stand out (in a bad way).

I totally respect the hat tradition (I've always liked the Queen's hats, and the Queen Mum had quite a flair for fashion) but I guess I don't see why it's a big deal not to participate, especially when Debretts said hats aren't required.

Maybe it's traditional to wear a hat to a formal event like this, and bucking the tradition maybe sent the wrong message?

It's kind of like going to a formal BWW in jeans. Yes, you're decent and even appropriate for some circumstances, but you're totally inappropriate for that particular venue. And it conveys a very definite message about you, that you either have no idea how to dress appropriately or you're trying to stand out (in a bad way).

Oh I get it. It's really too bad she did this then.

And her dress, which I think was lovely, would have looked really good with a matching hat. I thought the Queen's outfit was terrific. Normally she wears fairly plain (not in a bad way though) outfits, but that yellow was gorgeous.

What stood out for me was that Samantha Cameron lokked under-dressed compared to the rest of the guests. While her burberry dress was pretty, it was not on the same level of formality as most of the other guests, and the lack of a hat made it look even more casual. I understand her wanting to avoid looking like she was splashing the cash, but Joss Stone wore a beautiful dress/jacket/shoes combo that cost less than a third of Sam Cam's dress, and looked infinitely more formal.

From the article I posted: "Etiquette guide Debretts reads: 'Hats are traditional, but by no means compulsory, at British weddings, and a matter of personal choice for christenings or funerals."

In addition to previous comments, most British weddings are held at small churches, not large abbeys/cathedrals. The level of formality goes up accordingly.

Edited to add: I should have said that Christian weddings conducted by the Church of England are mostly held in small churches. Obviously, we also have registry office/alternative venue weddings and non-CofE religious weddings.

honestly I can't fathom the logic that says it is more respectful and/or formal to wear a monstrosity like Princess Beatrice's headgear then the pretty barrette that Samantha wore. Quite frankly it seems as if some of those hats are some sort of enormous joke being played on the people wearing them and the fashion commentators taking them serious.

Even if it wasn't your particular cup of tea, there was nothing in the slightest disrespectful or informal about the fascinator that Princess Beatrice wore. It was created for her by hat designer Philip Treacy. I read that there were at least three dozen women wearing Philip Treacy hats at the Royal Wedding, including the step-mother of the groom (Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall), the mother of the bride (Carole Middleton), Princess Michael of Kent, Queen Anna-Marie of Greece, Princess Mathilde of Belgium, and Victoria Beckham.

The bride herself has worn Philip Treacy hats many times. Camilla wore a Philip Treacy hat at her own wedding to Prince Charles.

How on earth can wearing bespoke headgear by the same designer who made the hats of the mother of the bride and the step-mother of the groom be considered disrespectful?

As usual, add me to the list of people sticking up for Beatrice's Philip Treacy Hat. Nothing wrong with it, completely appropriate just not to everyone's taste.

I think if Samantha Cameron wanted to make a statement that she was 'of the people' (not that anyone would buy that ) then she could have bought a hat from Debenhams or Monsoon or similar.

I'm going to guess that maybe she just looks awful in hats. Some people just do, my poor mum can't wear a hat at all, for some reason she just looks silly as soon as puts one on her head, whatever the style! However she started wearing fascinators to weddings as soon as they appeared, I think Sam should have worn a small fascinator at the very least.

As usual, add me to the list of people sticking up for Beatrice's Philip Treacy Hat. Nothing wrong with it, completely appropriate just not to everyone's taste.

I think if Samantha Cameron wanted to make a statement that she was 'of the people' (not that anyone would buy that ) then she could have bought a hat from Debenhams or Monsoon or similar.

I'm going to guess that maybe she just looks awful in hats. Some people just do, my poor mum can't wear a hat at all, for some reason she just looks silly as soon as puts one on her head, whatever the style! However she started wearing fascinators to weddings as soon as they appeared, I think Sam should have worn a small fascinator at the very least.

I also have to hand it to Princess Beatrice for the brilliant idea to turn the notoriety of the hat into money for charity. It's not like she can really wear it to another wedding again, right?

I *love* that she included on her eBay listing a link to the Facebook page, "Princess Beatrice's ridiculous Royal Wedding hat." She has really made what could have been a horrible experience for her into something very lovely. (Maybe her mother could take a lesson from her?)

I think if Samantha Cameron wanted to make a statement that she was 'of the people' (not that anyone would buy that ) then she could have bought a hat from Debenhams or Monsoon or similar.

I'm going to guess that maybe she just looks awful in hats. Some people just do, my poor mum can't wear a hat at all, for some reason she just looks silly as soon as puts one on her head, whatever the style! However she started wearing fascinators to weddings as soon as they appeared, I think Sam should have worn a small fascinator at the very least.

You know, I think you may have pegged what's seemed off to me about the lack of hat--it seems to be a non-verbal political statement, and it has to be universally considered rude to make someone else's wedding the stage for your (general-you) political statement.